not to get in the middle of this charmingly useless shitsling fest BUT

the fact that you can't get chemically addicted to guns is actually front n' center as to why legislating guns is not like legislating drugs. saying you can't legislate guns because you can't legislate <insert> is pretty much dead end logic especially when wellllp there's plenty of modern nations abound that quite sufficiently contain gun ownership to productive ends

It depends on whether or not the gun is old. Lead poisoning is a serious thing that have forced many famous celebrities in the past to spiral out of control. To pretend that consuming this heavy metal doesn't hurt people is silly.
There are several pages on this. Texas isn't the only state to deal with gun owners who have lost their mind from the contamination.
http://www.utexas.edu/safety/ehs/msds/lead.

Quote:

To paraphrase Monkey Mcdermott: Expensive weapons are totally a thing we have control over, as opposed to the existence, number, and access to humans, which we have no control over at all. Humans are so unpredictable. Their self-controlled discipline could be increased. Extra emphasis on the obese New Yorkers who insist on opening a speakeasy where they can drink from extra-large carbonated beverages that are laden with salt,caffeine and syrup.

Wow, I totally agree with this sock-puppet straw-man that is wanking me right now.
Feels good man.

Give me a bowl and a break-action shotgun and I'll prove you wrong. It can pack quite a payload._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

it's almost as if the pro-gun crowd treats gun violence as some kind of unstoppable force of nature, like earthquakes, and asking after ways of reducing gun violence is like asking that kung fu panda bear in Mists of Pandaria not to fight and all we can do is pile up our own guns and unwittingly help increase gun violence

it's almost as if the pro-gun crowd treats gun violence as some kind of unstoppable force of nature, like earthquakes, and asking after ways of reducing gun violence is like asking that kung fu panda bear in Mists of Pandaria not to fight and all we can do is pile up our own guns and unwittingly help increase gun violence

Its almost as though I'm unbelievably tired of "because free will" being used to justify intellectually bankrupt positions in the same way I'm tired of "because free speech" being used to justify creepy privacy invading photos and child porn._________________

Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them?

No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.

But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability._________________

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2136Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:04 am Post subject:

Snorri wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them?

No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.

But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability.

I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability.

Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them?

No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.

But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability.

I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability.

Indeed it doesn't, which is why pointing towards this list and France particular is stupid if you don't have the slightest idea how the French government goes about enforcing it's laws.

Because if at least a part of the 'unregistered' guns number is guns held by rural people that haven't bothered to register their simple hunting rifles then it would be absurd to claim the French government is unable to control guns._________________

that was all in 2002 pre-racist rampage in antwerp by that one dude who shot those people with that gun. afterwards, they clamped down on guns because our laws were pretty casual beforehand

of course, guns in belgium are mainly old hunting rifles and other things farmers may carry. not used a lot, either. lots of heirlooms too. those are actually included in the statistics, even if they're functionally useless plenty of times.

either way, they destroyed a bunch of those afterwards_________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2136Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject:

Snorri wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

Snorri wrote:

Mindslicer wrote:

Does the existence of at least 5 times the number of unregistered vs. registered guns in France mean the French government has control over who has them?

No of course not. It in fact doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean the French government has no control over firearms access. For such a bold claim just that number isn't enough. And not solely because it's a single number and doesn't tell you what way it is going, but also because it doesn't tell you anything about the particular circumstances in which gun-policy is being enacted.

But even disregarding all that, putting in the Netherlands instead of France, thus asking whether 2 times as many registered guns as unregistered ones means the Dutch government has control over access, would naturally lead you to conclude that you can in fact have control over gun-availability.

I would conclude instead that 'having control' over gun availability does not directly nor solely correlate to having words on a page that grant some organization control over gun availability.